Total Posts:20|Showing Posts:1-20
Jump to topic:

The Legitimacy Of Freedom

FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2011 7:23:01 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
You all know that I'm no fan of authority. But I am constantly seeing what I think is a real flawed in understanding of the role of freedom in society.

Liberty can be observed to have very useful practical applications in the real world for increasing the standard of living. But making it the base standard for forming one's political beliefs makes no rational sense. That's right, I'm saying Libertarianism is just a romanticism. I say that light-heartedly though because I really love romanticism.

People enjoy being free. That is it's utility. Increasing the amount of liberty in society generally has a positive effect. An authoritarian society is one of drudgery that sucks the joy out of living. The only thing is, liberty is not the only principle for increasing the satisfaction in living. There are many other desires that, when fed, create a more satisfied populous. Some of these other principles will at times go hand-in-hand with liberty and some will at times be in conflict with it. These principles include security, safety, health, social cohesion, among many others.

A rational deliberation of political theory must take all these factors into account. In many ways, Libertarian theory is just laziness. A fix-all. But there is no strict, literal, clear and straight-forward approach to understanding politics. You would do better off getting over your arrogance and realizing that it actually is a complicated matter after all. I used to be there. I used to be obsessed with finding the formula that solves it all. I'm known for changing my political views over and over again. The reason I did so is precisely because there is no formula answer. There were always inherent contradictions and disastrous real-world applications that could be uncovered.

So stop pretending like you have it all figured out. Stop pretending like you have found this one thing that's is the fix-all solution. I don't know the answer and you don't know the answer. Nobody knows the answer. At least democracy gives us the ability to argue about it and try different things. It may not give the satisfactory results but there is still a beauty to the fact that there was deliberation, that we aren't stuck in an unavoidable structure of things.

And now I'm basically just rambling and steering off from my original point so I will stop typing. Discuss.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Grape
Posts: 989
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2011 7:42:34 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/19/2011 7:23:01 PM, FREEDO wrote:
You all know that I'm no fan of authority. But I am constantly seeing what I think is a real flawed in understanding of the role of freedom in society.


Okay.

Liberty can be observed to have very useful practical applications in the real world for increasing the standard of living. But making it the base standard for forming one's political beliefs makes no rational sense. That's right, I'm saying Libertarianism is just a romanticism. I say that light-heartedly though because I really love romanticism.


Libertarianism is not necessarily based on maximizing liberty. Indeed, I know of very few libertarians (viz. none) who directly hold liberty to be the ultimate value. When this is implied, it is generally for rhetorical effect. Even if many libertarians believe that liberty is functionally most relevant to their values, very few are so foolish as to say that it is the highest value in itself.

People enjoy being free. That is it's utility. Increasing the amount of liberty in society generally has a positive effect. An authoritarian society is one of drudgery that sucks the joy out of living. The only thing is, liberty is not the only principle for increasing the satisfaction in living. There are many other desires that, when fed, create a more satisfied populous. Some of these other principles will at times go hand-in-hand with liberty and some will at times be in conflict with it. These principles include security, safety, health, social cohesion, among many others.


The point of libertarianism is not to increase liberty because people enjoy liberty for its own sake. That is at most a small part. The point is that security, safety, health, social cohesion, and the like will result from a more free society (or that when freedom is abridged to enhance one of these, the costs outweigh the benefits).

There is a certain element of personal preference to this. A libertarian cannot deny the existence of a man who would rather live in prison for the safety and security, though he might hesitate to call such a creature a man to begin with.

A rational deliberation of political theory must take all these factors into account. In many ways, Libertarian theory is just laziness. A fix-all. But there is no strict, literal, clear and straight-forward approach to understanding politics.

You are now actually asserting something about political theory. It very well could be the case that there is a straight-forward approach and that freedom is the answer. I certainly believe so, and at the very least the affirmation of this is at least not prima facie less plausible than its denial.

Of course, this does not mean the theory of liberty is simple. It means that its answers are consistent. That, if anything, should point to a correct theory.

You would do better off getting over your arrogance and realizing that it actually is a complicated matter after all.

No u. You are contradicting yourself by assuming that the knowledge of ~A is inherently more humble than the knowledge of A. Why are you so arrogant that you assume that liberty is not the simple, straightforward answer? These two possibilities do not differ significantly in our ability to ascertain them.

I used to be there. I used to be obsessed with finding the formula that solves it all. I'm known for changing my political views over and over again. The reason I did so is precisely because there is no formula answer. There were always inherent contradictions and disastrous real-world applications that could be uncovered.


If statements of political theory are truth-apt then there is some set of such statements that create a cogent political philosophy. The first step to getting toward that is to only assemble sets of statements that are internally consistent. If there is no fact of the matter in political theory than all theories are nonsense and libertarianism isn't inherently more flawed then any set of beliefs.

So stop pretending like you have it all figured out. Stop pretending like you have found this one thing that's is the fix-all solution.

Contending that you have some things figured out finally and completely is different than contending that you have everything figured out finally and completely. I actually believe that much of Austrian economics is wrong, but trivially so, because its philosophical foundations are not sufficiently rigorous. Correcting it would be a momentous task for which I certainly have no uncovered the answers. Does that make me not a libertarian, or...?

I don't know the answer and you don't know the answer. Nobody knows the answer.

I do know the answer to some questions. My inability to give an all-encompassing answer to a question of incredible scope like "what is the optimal way to organize society" does not render my answer no better than any other.

At least democracy gives us the ability to argue about it and try different things.

You are now directly contradicting yourself by positing democracy without the knowledge that it is the ideal system when you just criticized libertarians for positing market anarchism without the knowledge that it is the ideal system. Furthermore, libertarianism allows for all manner of discussion and debate about what people are to do, it just removes certain options from the table as unacceptable (or concludes that any such discussion or debate would have to arrive at said conclusions in order to remain reasonable). Hence discourse ethics.

It may not give the satisfactory results but there is still a beauty to the fact that there was deliberation, that we aren't stuck in an unavoidable structure of things.

And now I'm basically just rambling and steering off from my original point so I will stop typing. Discuss.

Okay.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2011 8:04:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Libertarianism isn't a fix all solution, but neither are political solutions. Libertarians don't believe in utopia. Politicians and centralized planning can not possible know how to fix all our problems either. That's why decentralized planning is preferred over centralized planning. Markets are trial and error processes to figure out the best way to serve society.

See F.A Hayek the use of knowledge in society:

http://en.wikipedia.org...
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2011 9:03:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/19/2011 8:04:24 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Libertarianism isn't a fix all solution, but neither are political solutions. Libertarians don't believe in utopia. Politicians and centralized planning can not possible know how to fix all our problems either. That's why decentralized planning is preferred over centralized planning. Markets are trial and error processes to figure out the best way to serve society.

See F.A Hayek the use of knowledge in society:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

No. Libertarianism has the same naive answer to every moral and societal quandary. Founding upon the near sighted principle of Non-agression, it has become the base mantra of the Libertarian party that everyone should be permitted to do as they wish, granted that they do not hurt anyone else.

The stark reality is, as Freedo pointed out, that there are other factors other than aggression and physical harm that may justifiably impede upon this idealist vision of pure liberty. This is the asserted formula to all that is formal, purported by libertarians. It does not work. It cannot be applied. It is flawed. Yet, still hailed as the be-all-end-all of moral rule and governmental coercion.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,042
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2011 9:06:07 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/19/2011 9:03:17 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/19/2011 8:04:24 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Libertarianism isn't a fix all solution, but neither are political solutions. Libertarians don't believe in utopia. Politicians and centralized planning can not possible know how to fix all our problems either. That's why decentralized planning is preferred over centralized planning. Markets are trial and error processes to figure out the best way to serve society.

See F.A Hayek the use of knowledge in society:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

No. Libertarianism has the same naive answer to every moral and societal quandary. Founding upon the near sighted principle of Non-agression, it has become the base mantra of the Libertarian party that everyone should be permitted to do as they wish, granted that they do not hurt anyone else.

The stark reality is, as Freedo pointed out, that there are other factors other than aggression and physical harm that may justifiably impede upon this idealist vision of pure liberty. This is the asserted formula to all that is formal, purported by libertarians. It does not work. It cannot be applied. It is flawed. Yet, still hailed as the be-all-end-all of moral rule and governmental coercion.

I'd at this point like to point out that, though I am a libertarian, the NAP is not my bible...I just believe in an economically right and socially far left society.

And I'll be the first to admit that I don't know how it would work. It's my IDEAOLOGY, not my mantra.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2011 9:12:37 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/19/2011 9:06:07 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 9/19/2011 9:03:17 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/19/2011 8:04:24 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Libertarianism isn't a fix all solution, but neither are political solutions. Libertarians don't believe in utopia. Politicians and centralized planning can not possible know how to fix all our problems either. That's why decentralized planning is preferred over centralized planning. Markets are trial and error processes to figure out the best way to serve society.

See F.A Hayek the use of knowledge in society:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

No. Libertarianism has the same naive answer to every moral and societal quandary. Founding upon the near sighted principle of Non-agression, it has become the base mantra of the Libertarian party that everyone should be permitted to do as they wish, granted that they do not hurt anyone else.

The stark reality is, as Freedo pointed out, that there are other factors other than aggression and physical harm that may justifiably impede upon this idealist vision of pure liberty. This is the asserted formula to all that is formal, purported by libertarians. It does not work. It cannot be applied. It is flawed. Yet, still hailed as the be-all-end-all of moral rule and governmental coercion.

I'd at this point like to point out that, though I am a libertarian, the NAP is not my bible...I just believe in an economically right and socially far left society.

And I'll be the first to admit that I don't know how it would work. It's my IDEAOLOGY, not my mantra.

I pretty much openly announce the NAP is complete bullsh!t. See my topic in philosophy on "what's so special about aggression". With that said, property rights make sense from a utilitarian perspective. Without property rights, there would be no incentive to produce and every incentive to steal property. Of course, one can take property rights to the logically absurdity, however property rights are essential.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2011 9:12:37 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/19/2011 9:06:07 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 9/19/2011 9:03:17 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/19/2011 8:04:24 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Libertarianism isn't a fix all solution, but neither are political solutions. Libertarians don't believe in utopia. Politicians and centralized planning can not possible know how to fix all our problems either. That's why decentralized planning is preferred over centralized planning. Markets are trial and error processes to figure out the best way to serve society.

See F.A Hayek the use of knowledge in society:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

No. Libertarianism has the same naive answer to every moral and societal quandary. Founding upon the near sighted principle of Non-agression, it has become the base mantra of the Libertarian party that everyone should be permitted to do as they wish, granted that they do not hurt anyone else.

The stark reality is, as Freedo pointed out, that there are other factors other than aggression and physical harm that may justifiably impede upon this idealist vision of pure liberty. This is the asserted formula to all that is formal, purported by libertarians. It does not work. It cannot be applied. It is flawed. Yet, still hailed as the be-all-end-all of moral rule and governmental coercion.

I'd at this point like to point out that, though I am a libertarian, the NAP is not my bible...I just believe in an economically right and socially far left society.

And I'll be the first to admit that I don't know how it would work. It's my IDEAOLOGY, not my mantra.

Strange, I would have guessed it was your mantra, since you so adamantly reject my reasoning for drug prohibition for example, using the exact same idealist and unfeasible "formula" of non-aggression to justify your dissent.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,042
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2011 9:15:01 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/19/2011 9:12:37 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/19/2011 9:06:07 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 9/19/2011 9:03:17 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/19/2011 8:04:24 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Libertarianism isn't a fix all solution, but neither are political solutions. Libertarians don't believe in utopia. Politicians and centralized planning can not possible know how to fix all our problems either. That's why decentralized planning is preferred over centralized planning. Markets are trial and error processes to figure out the best way to serve society.

See F.A Hayek the use of knowledge in society:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

No. Libertarianism has the same naive answer to every moral and societal quandary. Founding upon the near sighted principle of Non-agression, it has become the base mantra of the Libertarian party that everyone should be permitted to do as they wish, granted that they do not hurt anyone else.

The stark reality is, as Freedo pointed out, that there are other factors other than aggression and physical harm that may justifiably impede upon this idealist vision of pure liberty. This is the asserted formula to all that is formal, purported by libertarians. It does not work. It cannot be applied. It is flawed. Yet, still hailed as the be-all-end-all of moral rule and governmental coercion.

I'd at this point like to point out that, though I am a libertarian, the NAP is not my bible...I just believe in an economically right and socially far left society.

And I'll be the first to admit that I don't know how it would work. It's my IDEAOLOGY, not my mantra.

Strange, I would have guessed it was your mantra, since you so adamantly reject my reasoning for drug prohibition for example, using the exact same idealist and unfeasible "formula" of non-aggression to justify your dissent.

I use the NAP as far as personal and economic liberties--not in the literal sense.

Besides, that was only one of my arguments for drug legalisation.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2011 9:16:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/19/2011 9:12:37 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/19/2011 9:06:07 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 9/19/2011 9:03:17 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/19/2011 8:04:24 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Libertarianism isn't a fix all solution, but neither are political solutions. Libertarians don't believe in utopia. Politicians and centralized planning can not possible know how to fix all our problems either. That's why decentralized planning is preferred over centralized planning. Markets are trial and error processes to figure out the best way to serve society.

See F.A Hayek the use of knowledge in society:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

No. Libertarianism has the same naive answer to every moral and societal quandary. Founding upon the near sighted principle of Non-agression, it has become the base mantra of the Libertarian party that everyone should be permitted to do as they wish, granted that they do not hurt anyone else.

The stark reality is, as Freedo pointed out, that there are other factors other than aggression and physical harm that may justifiably impede upon this idealist vision of pure liberty. This is the asserted formula to all that is formal, purported by libertarians. It does not work. It cannot be applied. It is flawed. Yet, still hailed as the be-all-end-all of moral rule and governmental coercion.

I'd at this point like to point out that, though I am a libertarian, the NAP is not my bible...I just believe in an economically right and socially far left society.

And I'll be the first to admit that I don't know how it would work. It's my IDEAOLOGY, not my mantra.

Strange, I would have guessed it was your mantra, since you so adamantly reject my reasoning for drug prohibition for example, using the exact same idealist and unfeasible "formula" of non-aggression to justify your dissent.

Drug prohibition is wrong on so many ways besides just "property rights" justification. For one, making something illegal does not get rid of it. I just distorts the incentives. As society has show, drug prohibition has increased violence and made drugs even more dangerous. It has wasted resources that could have been used for other reasons. For second, drugs are hella fun!!!

See, no NAP bullsh!t equation to tell you why drug prohibition is bad, mkay.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,042
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2011 9:19:58 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/19/2011 9:16:56 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/19/2011 9:12:37 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/19/2011 9:06:07 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 9/19/2011 9:03:17 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/19/2011 8:04:24 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Libertarianism isn't a fix all solution, but neither are political solutions. Libertarians don't believe in utopia. Politicians and centralized planning can not possible know how to fix all our problems either. That's why decentralized planning is preferred over centralized planning. Markets are trial and error processes to figure out the best way to serve society.

See F.A Hayek the use of knowledge in society:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

No. Libertarianism has the same naive answer to every moral and societal quandary. Founding upon the near sighted principle of Non-agression, it has become the base mantra of the Libertarian party that everyone should be permitted to do as they wish, granted that they do not hurt anyone else.

The stark reality is, as Freedo pointed out, that there are other factors other than aggression and physical harm that may justifiably impede upon this idealist vision of pure liberty. This is the asserted formula to all that is formal, purported by libertarians. It does not work. It cannot be applied. It is flawed. Yet, still hailed as the be-all-end-all of moral rule and governmental coercion.

I'd at this point like to point out that, though I am a libertarian, the NAP is not my bible...I just believe in an economically right and socially far left society.

And I'll be the first to admit that I don't know how it would work. It's my IDEAOLOGY, not my mantra.

Strange, I would have guessed it was your mantra, since you so adamantly reject my reasoning for drug prohibition for example, using the exact same idealist and unfeasible "formula" of non-aggression to justify your dissent.

Drug prohibition is wrong on so many ways besides just "property rights" justification. For one, making something illegal does not get rid of it. I just distorts the incentives. As society has show, drug prohibition has increased violence and made drugs even more dangerous. It has wasted resources that could have been used for other reasons. For second, drugs are hella fun!!!

See, no NAP bullsh!t equation to tell you why drug prohibition is bad, mkay.

This.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2011 9:20:34 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Liberty is certainly not the base of my philosophy, but a fortunate byproduct. The NAP is not my Bible but an ethical outlook. It's not a religion and following it doesn't make it my Bible just as objectivists do not hold Ayn Rand to be their God(bad example I admit). The NAP plus self ownership and privatist propertarianism makes up my philosophy, and the philosophy of most who are labeled as holding liberty as the ultimate value.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2011 9:21:40 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/19/2011 9:16:56 PM, darkkermit wrote:

Drug prohibition is wrong on so many ways besides just "property rights" justification. For one, making something illegal does not get rid of it. I just distorts the incentives. As society has show, drug prohibition has increased violence and made drugs even more dangerous. It has wasted resources that could have been used for other reasons. For second, drugs are hella fun!!!

See, no NAP bullsh!t equation to tell you why drug prohibition is bad, mkay.

What makes you think that legalization reduces violence? Humor me.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2011 9:24:35 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/19/2011 9:21:40 PM, 000ike wrote:

What makes you think that legalization reduces violence? Humor me.

See prohibition era mobsters.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,042
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2011 9:32:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/19/2011 9:24:35 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 9/19/2011 9:21:40 PM, 000ike wrote:

What makes you think that legalization reduces violence? Humor me.

See prohibition era mobsters.

inb4 "Alcohol isn't as bad as current illicit drugs."
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2011 9:36:59 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/19/2011 9:21:40 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/19/2011 9:16:56 PM, darkkermit wrote:

Drug prohibition is wrong on so many ways besides just "property rights" justification. For one, making something illegal does not get rid of it. I just distorts the incentives. As society has show, drug prohibition has increased violence and made drugs even more dangerous. It has wasted resources that could have been used for other reasons. For second, drugs are hella fun!!!

See, no NAP bullsh!t equation to tell you why drug prohibition is bad, mkay.

What makes you think that legalization reduces violence? Humor me.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

39,392 dead just from government military. That's not including those killed between gangs, which is a lot larger.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,042
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2011 9:38:30 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/19/2011 9:20:34 PM, socialpinko wrote:
Liberty is certainly not the base of my philosophy, but a fortunate byproduct. The NAP is not my Bible but an ethical outlook. It's not a religion and following it doesn't make it my Bible just as objectivists do not hold Ayn Rand to be their God(bad example I admit). The NAP plus self ownership and privatist propertarianism makes up my philosophy, and the philosophy of most who are labeled as holding liberty as the ultimate value.

You mean Ayn Rand ISN'T God? *Angrily destroys statue of Atlas*
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2011 9:38:58 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/19/2011 9:36:59 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/19/2011 9:21:40 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/19/2011 9:16:56 PM, darkkermit wrote:

Drug prohibition is wrong on so many ways besides just "property rights" justification. For one, making something illegal does not get rid of it. I just distorts the incentives. As society has show, drug prohibition has increased violence and made drugs even more dangerous. It has wasted resources that could have been used for other reasons. For second, drugs are hella fun!!!

See, no NAP bullsh!t equation to tell you why drug prohibition is bad, mkay.

What makes you think that legalization reduces violence? Humor me.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

39,392 dead just from government military. That's not including those killed between gangs, which is a lot larger.

I'm going to have to debate you or Ninja on this, when I have time.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,042
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2011 9:40:01 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/19/2011 9:38:58 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/19/2011 9:36:59 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/19/2011 9:21:40 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/19/2011 9:16:56 PM, darkkermit wrote:

Drug prohibition is wrong on so many ways besides just "property rights" justification. For one, making something illegal does not get rid of it. I just distorts the incentives. As society has show, drug prohibition has increased violence and made drugs even more dangerous. It has wasted resources that could have been used for other reasons. For second, drugs are hella fun!!!

See, no NAP bullsh!t equation to tell you why drug prohibition is bad, mkay.

What makes you think that legalization reduces violence? Humor me.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

39,392 dead just from government military. That's not including those killed between gangs, which is a lot larger.

I'm going to have to debate you or Ninja on this, when I have time.

I'll let darker do it. I'm not prepared enough, and I'm also very strapped for time.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2011 10:26:50 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/19/2011 9:38:30 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:

You mean Ayn Rand ISN'T God? *Angrily destroys statue of Atlas*

My mom(an altruistic left leaning liberal saw a documentary on her and called her a spoiled b1tch. XD
I don't understand the attraction of objectivism but Rand is definitely a God at popularizing philosophy. I'll definitely give her that.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
Grape
Posts: 989
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2011 10:40:07 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/19/2011 9:03:17 PM, 000ike wrote:

No. Libertarianism has the same naive answer to every moral and societal quandary. Founding upon the near sighted principle of Non-agression, it has become the base mantra of the Libertarian party that everyone should be permitted to do as they wish, granted that they do not hurt anyone else.


You can come to that conclusion without the NAP. I think that, "everyone should be permitted to do as they wish, granted that they do not hurt anyone else" is a weak way of formulating it, but you can't even be bothered to spell the word 'aggression' correctly so I won't hold that against you.

The Libertarian Party and libertarians are not the same. The political party does not actually advocate full adherence to the NAP. What makes the NAP near-sighted (can a philosophical principle even be near-sighted?), naive, or what have you remains unexplained.

The stark reality is, as Freedo pointed out, that there are other factors other than aggression and physical harm that may justifiably impede upon this idealist vision of pure liberty.

Blank assertion.

This is the asserted formula to all that is formal, purported by libertarians. It does not work. It cannot be applied. It is flawed. Yet, still hailed as the be-all-end-all of moral rule and governmental coercion.

I can't understand that the first sentence, and my reading comprehension is quite fine. The rest is blank assertion. I can say "no it's not" and match your level of analysis.